Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his observation and his question. If we go home--and I know the Senator from Illinois was just home as well--there are two issues on the minds of virtually every American right now. I was asked questions everywhere I went pertaining to the Senator's first question, and that, of course, is what is going to happen in Iraq? We generally have an idea of what may evolve over the course of the next few weeks, and there is not much that South Dakotans can do about that. The second question is, What is going to happen to my economic circumstance? I talked to one businessman who had to lay off a couple of his employees, and it hurt him dearly. They had worked for him for a long period of time. He said: Tom, I have no choice. I talked to people who had their health insurance dropped, in part because business was so bad their employer could no longer sustain the cost incurred of paying their health insurance. They said: We understand, but at least we got to keep our job. But what are you going to do about it? That is the question. What are we going to do about it? What will the majority do about it? What message are we going to send to those people to whom we must show some empathy if, indeed, these conversations with our constituents mean anything at all? That is why it is imperative we are cognizant of the message we send today, tomorrow, the next day, and the next day. As this economy worsens, we spend our Senate time totally consumed with one nomination having to do with a circuit court nominee for the District of Columbia. This is the third week we have been on it. We can resolve this matter if Mr. Estrada will come forth with the information. But if he will not, let's move to something else until he does.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is exactly what this is about. I thank the Senator for asking the question. It is no more complicated than that. On a bipartisan basis, Republican and Democrat Senators have said we need the best information that can be provided by any nominee before we are called upon to fulfill our constitutional obligation. That is what we are suggesting. We need that information to make the best judgment. That information is being withheld. If I had an applicant for a job in my office and I said, I want you to fill out this application and I will be happy to consider your qualifications for employment in my office, and he or she said, I don't think I will fill out the second and third page, I will give you the front page, I will give you the name, address, and maybe my employment history, but that is it, you have to make a guess as to the rest of my qualifications because I am not telling you, I would say to that prospective employee, come back when you can fill out the full application. That is what I would say. That is what every employer in this country would say. Remarkably, when I went home last week and explained the issue to my constituents, they said: That sounds fair. That sounds reasonable. If an applicant for a lifetime position on the second highest court of the land is not willing to fill out his job application, how in the world should we consider that nominee as a bona fide applicant for the position in the first place? That, again, is a diversion from what I think most people are concerned about. They are concerned about this, and they want fairness, but they are a whole lot more concerned about whether they will be giving job applications to anyone in their State in their circumstances because they are doing the opposite. We do not have lifetime applications for jobs in South Dakota because the economy is very soft. If anything, we are losing jobs in South Dakota. So while we talk about 1 job for the circuit court, we have lost 2.5 million jobs in the last 2 years in this economy. That does not make sense. That is what the American people want us to address.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois has said it very well. That is exactly what this is about. At one level, this is about fulfilling constitutional obligations. This is about following precedent. This is about making sure there is fairness as we consider these nominees for all courts, but especially for courts at that level. This is also about something also, about the management of the Senate. While the Senate has been concerned about one job for the last 3 weeks, a lot of us are saying we ought to be concerned about the 8.3 million jobs we do not have in this country today as a result of disastrous economic policies on the part of this administration, 2.5 million of which have been lost in the last 2 years. We spend our time talking about one job; there is no talk on the other side about all of those millions of jobs lost in this country because there is no economic policy. What we are suggesting this morning is that there ought to be some consideration for those jobs, too; that to be consumed by one job and not consumed, or at least willing to address those millions of other jobs, is something I cannot explain to the people of my State or to the people of our country. I hope our Republicans will do something along those lines in the not too distant future.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from New York, before he came to the floor, I began my comments by reporting conversations I had with people back home last week. I was moved by the comments, by the reports, by the emotion I felt as I talked to people whose businesses, whose jobs, are perhaps more precarious than they have been for years. All the statistics bear that out. Consumer confidence is the lowest in 10 years, the number of those unemployed going up by millions in the last 2 years; every economic indicator is pointing to the growing crisis we face in the economy. Yet what do we do? We find ourselves once again most likely scheduled for the entire week, debating 1 job rather than the 2.5 million jobs lost just in the last 2 years alone.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator from New York put his finger on exactly the question. We just attempted to move on to something else. We were prevented from doing so. It is not just something else but perhaps the single most important domestic issue facing our country today. Yesterday, the request was made and agreed to that we take up the Hatch-Leahy PROTECT Act, as we should have agreed. I am glad that we were able to take it up and pass it. The Senate has demonstrated the ability to move off this legislation when it sees fit. We did it just yesterday. As the Senator from New York suggests, we did it again a few weeks ago with passage of the omnibus legislation. We are capable of moving off the bill and dealing with the other issues. I can't explain why we have chosen--why our Republican colleagues have chosen--to stay on this legislation even though we know there are so many more pressing issues that ought to be taken up. I can't explain their intransigence. I can't explain why they want to prolong this debate. I can't explain why they are unwilling to consider the 2.5 million jobs rather than the one job that we continue to debate on the Senate floor. That is inexplicable to me. I just hope the American people understand. We have come back after listening to our people. They made it clear to us what they want us to take up. They want us to deal with the economy. They want us to deal with the real problems we have with homeland security and the lack of training, the lack of communication and the lack of good technology and equipment which they need so badly. They do not have that either. That, too, would be economic in many respects, if we can provide that assistance. But it is not being provided because it is not being given the attention. Therein lies the credibility gap. Something is said and nothing is done. There is a big difference between rhetoric and reality when it comes to this administration and many of our colleagues on the other side.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is exactly what happened this morning. If we were filibustering we would not have suggested that we get off the issue. A filibuster is to prolong the debate. We want to end the debate. We want to move on to something far more pressing to the people of this country than the one job. We want to talk about those 2.5 million jobs that we have lost. Therein lies the issue. I hope the Republicans will bring this debate to a close so long as it doesn't appear that Mr. Estrada is willing to cooperate. At such time as he is prepared to do so, we can take this matter up again. But in the meantime, we ought to be concerned about those millions of jobs that continue to be lost because of congressional inaction and because of a failed economic policy on the part of the administration.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator from New Jersey asked the question that makes the point. The answer is absolutely no. Our Governors, of course, are hearing from the same people we are hearing from. They are concerned about the status quo. Someone once told me the status quo was Latin for the ``mess word.'' Their concern for the ``mess word'' and this mess continues to be compounded by a budget deficit that grows by the month. We are told now that we could exceed $70 billion. Some have suggested that the figure could be as high as $100 billion in debt. They are struggling with their own budgets in part because of the mess we created for them in Medicaid, in education, in homeland defense, unfunded mandates, and the sagging economy, and no real economic plan in place. Their message in coming to Washington is: Fix it; help us address this issue and be a full partner recognizing that you, too, have a full responsibility to engage with us in solving this issue. I think if you took a poll of all 50 Governors, should we stay on the Estrada nomination or should we address the economy and these budgetary questions, it would be unanimous--Republican and Democrat--they would say no; fix the economy and help us solve our own financial and fiscal problems. Do not be as consumed as you are about one job until you solve the problem for those 2.5 million jobs that haven't been addressed.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I salute a great American and South Dakotan, Major General Philip G. Killey. General Killey, currently the Adjutant General of the South Dakota National Guard, retires at the end of this week, after 40 years of service. His service includes nearly a quarter-century with the South Dakota National Guard, including two separate appointments as Adjutant General covering more than 6 years. Since September 11, 2001, General Killey's job has become more demanding and complex, but, as ever through his career, he has proven worthy of the challenge. Since September 11, his troops have been performing a broad variety of missions, from bolstering security at our State's airports to enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq, from fighting forest fires to keeping the peace in Bosnia. All this, while also staying trained and ready for their next assignment. Now, that next assignment is here. About 1,200 South Dakota Guard personnel have been called to active duty as part of our Nation's buildup on the borders of Iraq. Given the small population of our State, this is a major contribution. In fact, on a per capita basis, South Dakota is contributing more Guard personnel than all but five other States. This is a much larger commitment than the South Dakota Guard was asked to provide during Desert Storm, its other major call-up of the post-Cold War period, and it has come at a time when General Killey is already managing other high-priority commitments. Managing these tasks and the Iraq call-up turns out to be the capstone event of General Killey's long military career, and it stands as a real testament to his skill and leadership. It is at critical moments like this, when your resources are stretched thin and you are asked to do even more, that gaps in training, leadership or equipment will reveal themselves. But in South Dakota, General Killey's troops have met the test. They are ready, and it shows. Over the years, General Killey and I have worked together on many fronts to improve the equipment and facilities of the Guard. In the past 2 years, we have been able to secure nearly $35 million in construction funds to improve 7 Guard facilities at Camp Rapid, Fort Meade, Pierre, Watertown, Mitchell, and Sioux Falls. We were able to secure $97 million to upgrade 2 battalions of the multiple launch rocket system, one in South Dakota and one in Arkansas, making our artillery system one of the most modern and battle-ready in the National Guard. In these and other endeavors, I have come to appreciate and respect General Killey for his vision, his energy and initiative, and his sophistication in dealing with both military and civilian authorities. It's been a valuable and productive partnership. We clearly owe a debt of gratitude to General Killey for 40 years of patriotic service to our State and our Nation. I am proud to call him a fellow South Dakotan and wish all the best for him and his wife, Ellen.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act of 2003. The Senate unanimously approved this legislation late last fall, but it was not considered by the House of Representatives before Congress adjourned for the year. I hope that my colleagues will again support this effort and that we can see this bill signed into law. Wind Cave National Park, located in southwestern South Dakota, is one of the Park System's precious natural treasures and one of the Nation's first national parks. The cave itself, after which the park is named, is one of the world's oldest, longest and most complex cave systems, with more than 103 miles of mapped tunnels. The cave is well known for its exceptional display of boxwork, a rare, honeycomb-shaped formation that protrudes from the cave's ceilings and walls. While the cave is the focal point of the park, the land above the cave is equally impressive, with 28,000 acres of rolling meadows, majestic forests, creeks, and streams. As one of the few remaining mixed-grass prairie ecostytems in the country, the park is home to abundant wildlife, such as bison, deer, elk and birds, and is a National Game Preserve. The Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act will help expand the park by approximately 20 percent in the southern ``keyhole'' region. This land is currently owned by a ranching family that wants to see it protected from development and preserved for future generations. The land is a natural extension of the park, and boasts the mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forests found in the rest of the park, including a dramatic river canyon. The addition of this land will enhance recreation for hikers who come for the solitude of the park's back country. It will also protect archaeological sites, such as a buffalo jump, over which early native Americans once drove the bison they hunted, and improve fire management. This plan to expand the park has strong, but not universal, support in the surrounding community. The community's views were expressed during a recent 60-day public comment period on the proposal. Most South Dakotans recognize the value in expanding the park, not only to encourage additional tourism in the Black Hills, but to permanently protect these extraordinary lands for future generations of Americans to enjoy. Understandably, however, some are legitimately concerned about the potential loss of hunting opportunities and local tax revenue. Governor Janklow has expressed his conditional support for the park expansion, stating that there must be no reduction in the amount of lands with public access that can currently be hunted, that there must be no loss of tax revenue to the county from the expansion, and that chronic wasting disease issue must be dealt with effectively. These are reasonable conditions that should be met as this process moves forward. The legislation I am introducing today protects hunting opportunities for sportsmen by excluding 880 acres of School and Public Lands property from the expansion. In addition, Wind Cave National Park and the Trust for Public Lands are working with interested parties to find a way to offset the loss of local county tax revenues. Finally, I understand that the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department has reached an agreement with Wind Cave officials to expand research into chronic wasting disease, which will benefit wildlife populations nationwide. I am satisfied that the legitimate concerns about the potential expansion have been effectively addressed and today am moving forward to begin the legislative phase of this process. In conclusion, Wind Cave National Park has been a valued American treasure for nearly 100 years. We have an opportunity with this legislation to expand the park and enhance its value to the public so that visitors will enjoy it even more during the next 100 years. It is my hope that my colleagues will again support this expansion of the park and pass this legislation in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of 2003. This proposal is the culmination of more than 4 years of discussion with local landowners, the South Dakota Water Congress, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, local legislators, representatives of South Dakota sportsmen groups and affected citizens. It lays out a plan to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal features of the Oahe Irrigation Project in South Dakota to the Commission of School and Public Lands of the State of South Dakota for the purpose of mitigating lost wildlife habitat, and provides the option to preferential leaseholders to purchase their original parcels from the Commission. The bill I'm introducing today is the result of consultations with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee when it considered the bill last July. The committee incorporated changes to the legislation that will ensure a smooth transition of land from federal to private ownership, increase county tax revenues, as well as provide the tools and future funding necessary to help the state of South Dakota improve wildlife habitat and public hunting opportunities. The Senate unanimously approved this legislation late last fall, but it was not considered by the House of Representatives before Congress adjourned for the year. I hope that my colleagues will once again support this effort, and that we can see this bill signed into law. To more fully understand the issues addressed by the legislation, it is necessary to review some of the history related to the Oahe Unit of the Missouri River Basin project in South Dakota. The Oahe Unit was originally approved part of the overall plan for water development in the Missouri River Basin that was incorporated in the Flood Control Act of 1944. Subsequently, Public Law 90-453 authorized construction and operation of the initial stage of this unit. The purposes of the Oahe Unit, as authorized, were to provide for the immigration of 190,000 acres of farmland, conserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, promote recreation and meet other important goals. The project came to be known as the Oahe Irrigation Project. The principal features of the initial stage of the project included the Oahe pumping plant, located near Oahe Dam, to pump water from the Oahe Reservoir; a system of main canals, including the Pierre Canal, running east from the Oahe Reservoir; and, the establishment of regulating reservoirs, including the Blunt Dam and Reservoir, located approximately 35 miles east Pierre, SD. Under the authorizing legislation, 42,155 acres were to be acquired by the Federal Government in order to construct and operate the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Irrigation Project. Land acquisition for the proposed Blunt Reservoir feature began in 1972 and continued through 1977. A total of 17,878 acres usually were acquired from willing sellers. The first land for the Pierre Canal feature was purchased in July 1975 and included the 1.3 miles of Reach 1B. An additional 21-mile reach was acquired from 1976 through 1977, also from willing sellers. Organized opposition to the Oahe Irrigation Project surfaced in 1973 and continued to build until a series of public meetings were held in 1977 to determine if the project should continue. In late 1977, the Oahe project was made a part of Presidents Carter's Federal Water Project review process. The Oahe project construction was then halted on September 30, 1977, when Congress did not include funding in the fiscal year 1978 appropriations. Thus, all major construction contract activities ceased, and land acquisition was halted. The Oahe Project remained an authorized water project with a bleak future and minimal chances of being completed as authorized. Consequently, the Department of Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, gave those persons who willingly had sold their lands to the project, and their descendants, the right to lease those lands and use them as they had in the past until they were needed by the Federal Government for project purposes. During the period from 1978 until the present, the Bureau of Reclamation has administered these lands on a preferential lease basis for those original landowners or their descendants, and on a non- preferential basis for lands under lease to persons who were not preferential leaseholders. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation administers 12,978 acres as preferential leases and 4,304 acres as non- preferential leases in the Blunt Reservoir. As I noted previously, the Oahe Irrigation Project is related directly to the overall project purposes of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944. Under this program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed four major dams across the Missouri River in South Dakota. The two largest reservoirs formed by these dams, Oahe Reservoir and Sharpe Reservoir, cause the loss of approximately 221,000 acres of fertile, wooded bottomland that constituted some of the most productive, unique and irreplaceable wildlife habitat in the State of South Dakota. This included habitat for both game and non-game species, including several species now listed as threatened or endangered. Meriwether Lewis, while traveling up the Missouri River in 1804 on his famous expedition, wrote in his diary, ``Song birds, game species and furbearing animals abound here in numbers like none of the party has ever seen. The bottomlands and cottonwood trees provide a shelter and food for a great variety of species, all laying their claim to the river bottom.'' Under the provisions of the Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the State of South Dakota has developed a plan to mitigate a part of this lost wildlife habitat as authorized by Section 602 of Title VI of Public Law 105-277, October 21, 1998, known as the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act. The State's habitat mitigation plan has received the necessary approval and interim funding authorizations under Sections 602 and 609 of Title VI. The State's habitat mitigation plan requires the development of approximately 27,000 acres of wildlife habitat in South Dakota. Transferring the 4,304 acres of non-preferential lease lands in the Blunt Reservoir feature to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks would constitute a significant step toward satisfying the habitat mitigation obligation owed to the state by the Federal Government and as agreed upon by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. As we developed this legislation, many meetings occurred among the local landowners, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, business owners, local legislators, the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as representatives of sportsmen groups. It became apparent that the best solution for the local economy, tax base and wildlife mitigation issues would be to allow former Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal landowners to repurchase their former lands, on which they currently hold preferential leases, from the Bureau of Reclamation, BOR. The bill also will transfer non-preferentially-leased lands and unleased lands to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, GFP, as part of its broader plan to restore wildlife habitat that was lost due to the construction of the Missouri River dams. Under the provisions agreed to by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last summer, the South Dakota Commission of School and Public Lands would be responsible for working out the terms for selling the preferentially- leased lands to the former landowners. The bill will not only rightfully return property to South Dakotans, but also ensure the viability of the local land and tax bases. The legislation authorizes the creation of a trust fund that would be used to create a trust fund to pay the local taxes on those lands transferred to State. The trust fund would be through future appropriations by Congress. The State of South Dakota, the Federal Government, the original landowners, the sportsmen and wildlife will benefit from this bill. It provides for a fair and just resolution to the private property and environmental problems caused by the Oahe Irrigation Project some 25 years ago. We have waited long enough to right some of the wrongs suffered by our landowners and South Dakota's wildlife resources. Again, I am hopeful the Senate will act quickly on this legislation. Our goal is to enact a bill that will allow meaningful wildlife habitat mitigation to begin, give certainty to local landowners who sacrificed their lands for a defunct federal project they once supported, ensure the viability of the local land base and tax base, and provide well maintained and managed recreation areas for sportsmen. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act of 2003. The Senate unanimously approved this legislation late last fall, but it was not considered by the House of Representatives before Congress adjourned for the year. I hope that my colleagues will again support this effort and that we can see this bill signed into law. Wind Cave National Park, located in southwestern South Dakota, is one of the Park System's precious natural treasures and one of the Nation's first national parks. The cave itself, after which the park is named, is one of the world's oldest, longest and most complex cave systems, with more than 103 miles of mapped tunnels. The cave is well known for its exceptional display of boxwork, a rare, honeycomb-shaped formation that protrudes from the cave's ceilings and walls. While the cave is the focal point of the park, the land above the cave is equally impressive, with 28,000 acres of rolling meadows, majestic forests, creeks, and streams. As one of the few remaining mixed-grass prairie ecostytems in the country, the park is home to abundant wildlife, such as bison, deer, elk and birds, and is a National Game Preserve. The Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act will help expand the park by approximately 20 percent in the southern ``keyhole'' region. This land is currently owned by a ranching family that wants to see it protected from development and preserved for future generations. The land is a natural extension of the park, and boasts the mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forests found in the rest of the park, including a dramatic river canyon. The addition of this land will enhance recreation for hikers who come for the solitude of the park's back country. It will also protect archaeological sites, such as a buffalo jump, over which early native Americans once drove the bison they hunted, and improve fire management. This plan to expand the park has strong, but not universal, support in the surrounding community. The community's views were expressed during a recent 60-day public comment period on the proposal. Most South Dakotans recognize the value in expanding the park, not only to encourage additional tourism in the Black Hills, but to permanently protect these extraordinary lands for future generations of Americans to enjoy. Understandably, however, some are legitimately concerned about the potential loss of hunting opportunities and local tax revenue. Governor Janklow has expressed his conditional support for the park expansion, stating that there must be no reduction in the amount of lands with public access that can currently be hunted, that there must be no loss of tax revenue to the county from the expansion, and that chronic wasting disease issue must be dealt with effectively. These are reasonable conditions that should be met as this process moves forward. The legislation I am introducing today protects hunting opportunities for sportsmen by excluding 880 acres of School and Public Lands property from the expansion. In addition, Wind Cave National Park and the Trust for Public Lands are working with interested parties to find a way to offset the loss of local county tax revenues. Finally, I understand that the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department has reached an agreement with Wind Cave officials to expand research into chronic wasting disease, which will benefit wildlife populations nationwide. I am satisfied that the legitimate concerns about the potential expansion have been effectively addressed and today am moving forward to begin the legislative phase of this process. In conclusion, Wind Cave National Park has been a valued American treasure for nearly 100 years. We have an opportunity with this legislation to expand the park and enhance its value to the public so that visitors will enjoy it even more during the next 100 years. It is my hope that my colleagues will again support this expansion of the park and pass this legislation in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of 2003. This proposal is the culmination of more than 4 years of discussion with local landowners, the South Dakota Water Congress, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, local legislators, representatives of South Dakota sportsmen groups and affected citizens. It lays out a plan to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal features of the Oahe Irrigation Project in South Dakota to the Commission of School and Public Lands of the State of South Dakota for the purpose of mitigating lost wildlife habitat, and provides the option to preferential leaseholders to purchase their original parcels from the Commission. The bill I'm introducing today is the result of consultations with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee when it considered the bill last July. The committee incorporated changes to the legislation that will ensure a smooth transition of land from federal to private ownership, increase county tax revenues, as well as provide the tools and future funding necessary to help the state of South Dakota improve wildlife habitat and public hunting opportunities. The Senate unanimously approved this legislation late last fall, but it was not considered by the House of Representatives before Congress adjourned for the year. I hope that my colleagues will once again support this effort, and that we can see this bill signed into law. To more fully understand the issues addressed by the legislation, it is necessary to review some of the history related to the Oahe Unit of the Missouri River Basin project in South Dakota. The Oahe Unit was originally approved part of the overall plan for water development in the Missouri River Basin that was incorporated in the Flood Control Act of 1944. Subsequently, Public Law 90-453 authorized construction and operation of the initial stage of this unit. The purposes of the Oahe Unit, as authorized, were to provide for the immigration of 190,000 acres of farmland, conserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, promote recreation and meet other important goals. The project came to be known as the Oahe Irrigation Project. The principal features of the initial stage of the project included the Oahe pumping plant, located near Oahe Dam, to pump water from the Oahe Reservoir; a system of main canals, including the Pierre Canal, running east from the Oahe Reservoir; and, the establishment of regulating reservoirs, including the Blunt Dam and Reservoir, located approximately 35 miles east Pierre, SD. Under the authorizing legislation, 42,155 acres were to be acquired by the Federal Government in order to construct and operate the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Irrigation Project. Land acquisition for the proposed Blunt Reservoir feature began in 1972 and continued through 1977. A total of 17,878 acres usually were acquired from willing sellers. The first land for the Pierre Canal feature was purchased in July 1975 and included the 1.3 miles of Reach 1B. An additional 21-mile reach was acquired from 1976 through 1977, also from willing sellers. Organized opposition to the Oahe Irrigation Project surfaced in 1973 and continued to build until a series of public meetings were held in 1977 to determine if the project should continue. In late 1977, the Oahe project was made a part of Presidents Carter's Federal Water Project review process. The Oahe project construction was then halted on September 30, 1977, when Congress did not include funding in the fiscal year 1978 appropriations. Thus, all major construction contract activities ceased, and land acquisition was halted. The Oahe Project remained an authorized water project with a bleak future and minimal chances of being completed as authorized. Consequently, the Department of Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, gave those persons who willingly had sold their lands to the project, and their descendants, the right to lease those lands and use them as they had in the past until they were needed by the Federal Government for project purposes. During the period from 1978 until the present, the Bureau of Reclamation has administered these lands on a preferential lease basis for those original landowners or their descendants, and on a non- preferential basis for lands under lease to persons who were not preferential leaseholders. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation administers 12,978 acres as preferential leases and 4,304 acres as non- preferential leases in the Blunt Reservoir. As I noted previously, the Oahe Irrigation Project is related directly to the overall project purposes of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944. Under this program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed four major dams across the Missouri River in South Dakota. The two largest reservoirs formed by these dams, Oahe Reservoir and Sharpe Reservoir, cause the loss of approximately 221,000 acres of fertile, wooded bottomland that constituted some of the most productive, unique and irreplaceable wildlife habitat in the State of South Dakota. This included habitat for both game and non-game species, including several species now listed as threatened or endangered. Meriwether Lewis, while traveling up the Missouri River in 1804 on his famous expedition, wrote in his diary, ``Song birds, game species and furbearing animals abound here in numbers like none of the party has ever seen. The bottomlands and cottonwood trees provide a shelter and food for a great variety of species, all laying their claim to the river bottom.'' Under the provisions of the Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the State of South Dakota has developed a plan to mitigate a part of this lost wildlife habitat as authorized by Section 602 of Title VI of Public Law 105-277, October 21, 1998, known as the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act. The State's habitat mitigation plan has received the necessary approval and interim funding authorizations under Sections 602 and 609 of Title VI. The State's habitat mitigation plan requires the development of approximately 27,000 acres of wildlife habitat in South Dakota. Transferring the 4,304 acres of non-preferential lease lands in the Blunt Reservoir feature to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks would constitute a significant step toward satisfying the habitat mitigation obligation owed to the state by the Federal Government and as agreed upon by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. As we developed this legislation, many meetings occurred among the local landowners, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, business owners, local legislators, the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as representatives of sportsmen groups. It became apparent that the best solution for the local economy, tax base and wildlife mitigation issues would be to allow former Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal landowners to repurchase their former lands, on which they currently hold preferential leases, from the Bureau of Reclamation, BOR. The bill also will transfer non-preferentially-leased lands and unleased lands to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, GFP, as part of its broader plan to restore wildlife habitat that was lost due to the construction of the Missouri River dams. Under the provisions agreed to by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last summer, the South Dakota Commission of School and Public Lands would be responsible for working out the terms for selling the preferentially- leased lands to the former landowners. The bill will not only rightfully return property to South Dakotans, but also ensure the viability of the local land and tax bases. The legislation authorizes the creation of a trust fund that would be used to create a trust fund to pay the local taxes on those lands transferred to State. The trust fund would be through future appropriations by Congress. The State of South Dakota, the Federal Government, the original landowners, the sportsmen and wildlife will benefit from this bill. It provides for a fair and just resolution to the private property and environmental problems caused by the Oahe Irrigation Project some 25 years ago. We have waited long enough to right some of the wrongs suffered by our landowners and South Dakota's wildlife resources. Again, I am hopeful the Senate will act quickly on this legislation. Our goal is to enact a bill that will allow meaningful wildlife habitat mitigation to begin, give certainty to local landowners who sacrificed their lands for a defunct federal project they once supported, ensure the viability of the local land base and tax base, and provide well maintained and managed recreation areas for sportsmen. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask the distinguished majority leader if it is his intention to bring the bill up tomorrow? There have been questions about the schedule tomorrow. You did indicate it was more likely it would come up tomorrow rather than tonight?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the chairman and the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Conservation Security Program was an important part of the 2002 farm bill. It holds tremendous potential to help our farmers and ranchers clean up the environment. I, too, concur that the Senator from Iowa's statements about the intent of this conference report. I truly appreciate the bipartisan commitments of my colleagues to ensure that the CSP is implemented and operated as we intended.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is my understanding that the omnibus appropriations bill includes $300,000 for the Oglala Sioux Tribe to automate the functions of the tribe's court system. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina regarding this funding, which is included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. It is my understanding that the funding in question is intended to be used by Cangleska, Inc., a non-profit organization located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota that is dedicated to the prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault, to help enhance the capacity of the Oglala Sioux Tribe to arrest, prosecute, and rehabilitate offenders.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senior Senator from South Carolina for his clarification regarding this matter.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. I oppose this bill because it is a significant step backward from the bills that the Appropriations Committee reported last year unanimously. The most troubling departure from these committee-passed bills is in the critical area of homeland security. Compared to the levels unanimously approved last year by the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill makes deep cuts in the Transportation Security Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, community policing, FEMA disaster assistance, the DOT Office of Domestic Preparedness, firefighter grants, port security, American embassy security, and many other homeland security needs. The agricultural disaster assistance provisions in bill are also of great concern to my State of South Dakota and many other States. The provisions provide limited assistance to producers by cutting important conservation assistance in the Farm Bill. The provisions provide only half the assistance needed to address the scope of natural disaster across the country. Finally, the provision provides assistance to select producers who did not suffer from natural disasters. The Senate voted three times last year for a measure that would have compensated all drought victims for their loss. Unfortunately, objections by the White House and the House Republican leadership stopped this aid from making it to producers. I am also very concerned about the anti-environmental provisions in the bill. One provision would dramatically expand the forest stewardship contracting program until 2013. This provision would eliminate the current cap on pilot projects and require the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to open up more than 70 million acres to potential logging. The timber companies, not the Forest Service, would pick the trees to be harvested. In addition, the bill would eliminate judicial review for the Tongass National Forest land management plan; remove language protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; exempt the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from environmental review; and cut funding for important conservation programs. For these reasons, I oppose this conference report and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.